Training Observers to Detect Deception Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal


  • MARK A. de TURCK,

    1. Mark A. deTurck is Assistant Professor of Communication, State University of New York at Buffalo.
    Search for more papers by this author

    1. Gerald R. Miller is Professor of Communication at Michigan State University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Pamela Kalbfleisch and Mimi Wilkinson who were instrumental in producing videotapes, and Janet Harszlak, Lynne Texter, and Renee Klotch who assisted in other capacities.
    Search for more papers by this author


It was predicted that trained observers would detect deception more accurately than untrained observers. More specifically, it was predicted that the highest deception detection accuracy would be found among trained observers judging the veracity of low self-monitors and unrehearsed liars, whereas the lowest detection accuracy would be found among untrained observers judging the veracity of high self-monitors and rehearsed deceivers. It also was hypothesized that the discrepancy between observers‘actual ability to detect deception and their certainty in the accuracy of their judgments would be smaller for trained observers than for untrained observers. Observers trained to detect deception used six behavioral cues based on research by deTurck and Miller (1985): (a) message duration, (b) response latency, (c) adaptors, (d) pauses, (e) nonfluencies, and (f) hand gestures. Results confirmed both hypotheses.